DOCSLIB.ORG

Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 4

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 4 BRIEFING PAPER Number 6111, 29 March 2021 Fixed-term Parliaments By Richard Kelly Act 2011 Contents: 1. Background 2. Fixed-term Parliaments – an overview of the Act 3. Statutory Review of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 4. End of a parliamentary term 5. Impact of the Act on other legislation 6. Calls to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 7. Select committee work on fixed-term Parliaments www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 Contents Summary 4 Overview of the Act 4 Statutory review of the Act and Government plans to repeal the Act 4 1. Background 6 2. Fixed-term Parliaments – an overview of the Act 8 2.1 Five year fixed-term elections 8 2.2 Early elections 8 No confidence motions 9 Motions for an early general election 9 2.3 Dissolution of Parliament 10 2.4 Review of the operation of the Act 11 3. Statutory Review of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 12 3.1 Role and members 12 Appointment of the committee 13 3.2 Draft Bill published 14 3.3 The Joint Committee’s Report 14 Review of the Act 14 Scrutiny of the draft Bill 15 3.4 Previously suggested questions for the Review Committee 16 3.5 Government Responses to the Reports and reactions to the draft bill 17 4. End of a parliamentary term 20 Wash-up 20 Prorogation and dissolution 20 Valedictory debates 20 5. Impact of the Act on other legislation 22 5.1 Election expenses 22 5.2 Boundary changes 22 5.3 No confidence and confidence motions 23 5.4 Demise of the Crown 23 5.5 Combined elections in May 23 5.6 Prorogation 24 5.7 Length of a Parliament 24 6. Calls to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 25 6.1 Backbench Business Debate 25 6.2 Private Members’ bills 26 6.3 Would repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 restore the status quo ante? 28 6.4 Other criticisms of the Act 29 7. Select committee work on fixed-term Parliaments 31 Reports in the current Parliament 31 2017 Parliament 31 2010 Parliament 31 Appendix: Questions for the Review Committee 32 3 Commons Library Briefing, 29 March 2021 Cover page image copyright: CRI-1564 by UK Parliament/Mark Crick image. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped. 4 Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 Summary Overview of the Act The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 set a five-year interval between ordinary general elections. General elections are scheduled to take place on the first Thursday in May in every fifth year. The next general election is scheduled to take place on 2 May 2024. The Act includes two mechanisms that could lead to early general elections. The Act specifies that early elections can be held only: • if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or • if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days. The Act put dissolution on a statutory footing. Previously Parliament was dissolved by the Queen, on the advice of the Prime Minister. Now Parliament can only be dissolved in accordance with the Act. However, the Act did not alter the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament. The House of Commons has considered five motions under the Act. On 19 April 2017, the House agreed to an early general election that took place in June 2017. It rejected a motion of no confidence on 19 January 2019. Before the 2019 general election, the Government failed on three occasions to secure the necessary two thirds majority to trigger an early election under the Act (4 September 2019; 9 September 2019; and 28 October 2019). The Government subsequently secured the support of Parliament for the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019. This Act set the date of the 2019 general election and treated it as if it were a day appointed by the 2011 Act. In their manifestos for the general election, both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party called for the Act to be repealed: • “We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action” – Conservative Party Manifesto 2019; • “A Labour government will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which has stifled democracy and propped up weak governments” – Labour Party Manifesto, 2019. Statutory review of the Act and Government plans to repeal the Act The Act has to be reviewed. It required the Prime Minister to make arrangements for a committee to carry out a review of the Act and to publish the committee’s findings and recommendations, which can include repealing or amending the Act. A majority of the members of the committee have to be MPs. The Prime Minister had to make arrangements for the committee between 1 June and 30 November 2020. On 10 November 2020, the House of Commons agreed to the Prime Minister’s proposal to appoint a joint committee to undertake the statutory review of the Act. Fourteen MPs were appointed to serve on the joint committee. The joint committee will also be asked to report on the Government’s plans to repeal the Act, which will be set out in a draft bill. The joint committee has to report by Friday 26 February 2021. 5 Commons Library Briefing, 29 March 2021 On 24 November 2020, the House of Lords agreed that a joint committee should be appointed to review the Act and nominated six members to serve on it. On 26 November 2020, Lord McLoughlin was chosen by the joint committee to be its chair. The Government’s Draft Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill was published on 1 December 2020. The draft bill provides for the repeal of the 2011 Act; confirms that the maximum term of a Parliament (rather than the period between general elections) shall be five years; and contains an express provision to restore the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. Alongside the draft bill, the Government published a single-page “draft statement of the non-legislative constitutional principles that apply to dissolution”. On the same day, Chloe Smith issued a written statement, which outlined the provisions of the draft bill and announced the publication of the summary of dissolution principles. At its meeting on 26 November 2020, the joint committee issued a call for written evidence on either the operation of the Act or the draft bill; and said that it would take into account evidence that had been submitted to the inquiries undertaken by parliamentary committees recently. The Joint Committee’s report was published on 24 March 2021. In accordance with its remit it undertook both the statutory review of the 2011 Act and a review of the Government’s draft bill. In its scrutiny of the draft bill, the Committee considered that “It is clear that it would be impossible to simply repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as to do so would cause legal uncertainty”. The Committee agreed with the Government that it was possible to revive the prerogative in the way it proposed in the draft bill, although it described the Government’s approach to instruct the courts to act as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never been passed as “novel”. It noted the importance of a clear understanding of the process that the Government intended to be revived. The Committee also reviewed the Government’s Dissolution Principles, a document published alongside the draft bill to set out the Government’s view of the “non-legislative constitutional principles that apply to dissolution”. The Joint Committee considered that the Government’s document was inadequate. It set out its own understanding of the conventions on elections and government formation under a prerogative system. 6 Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 1. Background The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 sets a maximum time period between elections, rather than the actual length of the Parliament: it fixed the period between ordinary general elections at five years. It also puts dissolution on a statutory footing. Until the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the legislation governing the maximum term of the UK Parliament was the Septennial Act 1715, as amended by the Parliament Act 1911. This set the maximum length of a Parliament at five years (from the meeting of a Parliament after an election to dissolution).1 Parliaments were ended by the Monarch dissolving them – using prerogative powers – on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Proposals to reduce the likelihood of an early dissolution of Parliament were a key element of the 2010 Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.2 Initially the Coalition’s Programme for Government proposed a procedure for early dissolution on a vote of 55 per cent of the membership of the House of Commons by resolution of the House alone, but in the event the Government decided to move straight to legislation.3 During its passage, the Bill was subject to considerable criticism, particularly in the Lords. Members argued that such important constitutional legislation should have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. There was also criticism that the main motivation for the legislation was to sustain the Coalition Government for a full parliamentary term and that the proper length of term should be four years, not five. But transferring power from the Prime Minister to the House of Commons was also an argument for the legislation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Election" Defined -- Offices to Be Filled -- Constitu- Tional Amendments
    TITLE 34 ELECTIONS CHAPTER 1 DEFINITIONS 34-101. "GENERAL ELECTION" DEFINED -- OFFICES TO BE FILLED -- CONSTITU- TIONAL AMENDMENTS. "General election" means the national, state and county election held on the first Tuesday succeeding the first Monday of November in each even-numbered year. At these elections there shall be chosen all congressional, state and county officers, including electors of president and vice-president of the United States, as are by law to be elected in such years. All amendments to the Idaho constitution shall be submitted to the vot- ers for their approval at these elections. [34-101, added 1970, ch. 140, sec. 1, p. 351; am. 1971, ch. 194, sec. 1, p. 881.] 34-102. "PRIMARY ELECTION" DEFINED -- PURPOSES. (1) "Primary elec- tion" means an election held for the purpose of nominating persons as candidates of political parties for election to offices, and for the purpose of electing persons as members of the controlling committees of political parties. Primary elections, with the exception of presidential primaries, shall be held on the third Tuesday of May in each even-numbered year. (2) "Presidential primary" means an election held for the purpose of allowing voters to express their choice of candidate for nomination by a po- litical party for president of the United States. A presidential primary shall be held on the second Tuesday in March in each presidential election year. [34-102, added 1970, ch. 140, sec. 2, p. 351; am. 1971, ch. 194, sec. 2, p. 881; am. 1975, ch. 174, sec. 11, p. 469; am. 1979, ch. 309, sec.
    [Show full text]
  • OEA/Ser.G CP/Doc. 4115/06 8 May 2006 Original: English REPORT OF
    OEA/Ser.G CP/doc. 4115/06 8 May 2006 Original: English REPORT OF THE ELECTORAL OBSERVATION MISSION IN BOLIVIA PRESIDENTIAL AND PREFECTS ELECTIONS 2005 This document is being distributed to the permanent missions and will be presented to the Permanent Council of the Organization ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES REPORT OF THE ELECTORAL OBSERVATION MISSION IN BOLIVIA PRESIDENTIAL AND PREFECTS ELECTIONS 2005 Secretariat for Political Affairs This version is subject to revision and will not be available to the public pending consideration, as the case may be, by the Permanent Council CONTENTS MAIN ABBREVIATIONS vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Electoral Process of December 2005 1 B. Legal and Electoral Framework 3 1. Electoral officers 4 2. Political parties 4 3. Citizen groups and indigenous peoples 5 4. Selection of prefects 6 CHAPTER II. MISSION BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND CHARACTERISTICS 7 A. Mission Objectives 7 B. Preliminary Activities 7 C. Establishment of Mission 8 D. Mission Deployment 9 E. Mission Observers in Political Parties 10 F. Reporting Office 10 CHAPTER III. OBSERVATION OF PROCESS 11 A. Electoral Calendar 11 B. Electoral Training 11 1. Training for electoral judges, notaries, and board members11 2. Disseminating and strengthening democratic values 12 C. Computer System 13 D. Monitoring Electoral Spending and Campaigning 14 E. Security 14 CHAPTER IV. PRE-ELECTION STAGE 15 A. Concerns of Political Parties 15 1. National Electoral Court 15 2. Critical points 15 3. Car traffic 16 4. Sealing of ballot boxes 16 5. Media 17 B. Complaints and Reports 17 1. Voter registration rolls 17 2. Disqualification 17 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Initiative and Referendum Process in Nebraska
    This guidance document is advisory in nature but is binding on an agency until amended by such agency. A guidance document does not include internal procedural documents that only affect the internal operations of the agency and does not impose additional requirements or penalties on regulated parties or include confidential information or rules and regulations made in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. If you believe that this guidance document imposes additional requirements or penalties on regulated parties, you may request a review of the document. HOW TO USE THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCESS IN NEBRASKA SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN GALE This publication is provided free of charge and may be reproduced in part or in whole. This pamphlet is intended for general informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for statutory provisions. Contributions to this publication from the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (Part III) and review and suggestions from individuals familiar with the initiative and referendum process are greatly appreciated. (Revised August 2015) Dear Citizens of Nebraska, The initiative and referendum process in Nebraska has a long and rich history. Established first in 1912, the process has addressed a myriad of issues such as soldiers’ bonuses, bottle laws, budget limitations and seat belts to name a few. The power of the citizens to use this process is established within our state constitution. Many suggest that it plays a more important role in Nebraska than other states because of our unique unicameral legislature. It has been said that the people of Nebraska, through their use of the initiative and referendum, comprise the second legislative house within our state.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Political Participation in International Law
    The Right to Political Participation In International Law Gregory H. Fox I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 540 I1. THE EMERGING INTERNATIONAL LAW OF PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS ................. 544 A. ParticipatoryRights Before 1948: The Reign of the State Sovereignty Approach ..... 544 B. The Nature and Scope of Post-War Treaty-Based ParticipatoryRights ........... 552 1. The InternationalCovenant on Civil and PoliticalRights ................ 553 a. Non-Discrimination .................................... 553 b. The Right to Take Part in Public Affairs........................ 555 c. Requirements Concerning Elections ........................... 555 2. The FirstProtocol to the European Convention on Human Rights ........... 560 a. Rights Concerning Elections ................................ 561 b. Non-Discrimination .................................... 563 3. The American Convention on Hwnan Rights ........................ 565 4. Other InternationalInstruments Guaranteeing ParticipatoryRights .......... 568 a. The African Charteron Hwnan and Peoples' Rights ................ 568 b. Council on Security and Co-operationin Europe Accords ............. 568 5. Summary of Treaty-Based Norms ................................ 570 II. INTERNATIONAL ELECTION MONITORING: THE ELABORATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS ......................................... 570 A. Election Monitoring Priorto 1945 .................................. 571 B. Monitoring Under the United Nations System .......................... 572 1. The
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Election Commission Annual Report 2005
    Federal Election Commission Annual Report 2005 Federal Election Commission Washington, DC 20463 Commissioners Michael E. Toner, Chairman Robert D. Lenhard, Vice Chairman David M. Mason, Commissioner Hans A. von Spakovsky, Commissioner Steven T. Walther, Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner Statutory Officers Robert J. Costa, Acting Staff Director Lawrence H. Norton, General Counsel Lynne A. McFarland, Inspector General The Annual Report is prepared by: Gregory J. Scott, Assistant Staff Director, Information Division Carrie Hoback, Public Affairs Specialist, Information Division Carlin E. Bunch, Production Paul Clark, Ph.D., Statistician, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN June 1, 2006 The President of the United States Members of The United States Senate Members of The United States House of Representatives, Dear Mr. President, Senators and Representatives: We are pleased to submit foryour informationthe 31st Annual Report of the Federal Election Commission, pursuant to 2 U.S.C.§438(a)(9). The Annual Report 2005 describes the activities performedby the Commission in the last calendar year. During this non-election year, the Commission issued 20 advisory opinions, collected nearly $2.5 million in civil penalties and closed 12 litigation cases. At the same time, the agency efficientlyreceived and made public volumes of financialdata, conducted numerous audits of political committees to ensure compliance with the law, and continued to promote compliance with campaign finance laws through a variety of outreach programs. The Commission also completed a number of significant rulemakings, including new regulations that allow corporate members of trade associations to utilize payroll deductions when making contributions to the trade association's separate segregated fund (SSF).
    [Show full text]
  • THE 2001 UK GENERAL ELECTION Lots of Words About Little Change
    PARTY POLITICS VOL 8. No.5 pp. 607–616 Copyright © 2002 SAGE Publications London Thousand Oaks New Delhi REVIEW ARTICLE THE 2001 UK GENERAL ELECTION Lots of Words About Little Change Ron Johnston David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh, The British General Election of 2001. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002. £52.00/£18.99. 356 pp. ISBN 0 333 740327 (hbk); 0 333 740335 (pbk) Pippa Norris (ed.), Britain Votes 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. £16.99. 276 pp. ISBN 0 19 851049 7 (pbk) Robert Worcester and Roger Mortimore, Explaining Labour’s Second Landslide. London: Politico’s, 2001. £20.00. 330 pp. ISBN 1 902301 84 6 (hbk) Andrew Geddes and Jonathan Tonge (eds), Labour’s Second Landslide: The British General Election 2001. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002. £15.99. 272 pp. ISBN 0 7190 6266 7 (pbk) Anthony King (ed.) Britain at the Polls, 2001. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 2002. US$23.95. 241 pp. ISBN 1 889 119 74 1 (pbk) 1354-0688(200209)7:4;607–616;027593 PARTY POLITICS 8(5) Time was – before the 1983 general election, which was going to break the mould of British politics but didn’t (but which might have broken British psephology if some political scientists then associated with the Social Science Research Council had had their way!) – when there was just one author to whom we turned to understand what had happened at a UK general election: David Butler. Psephology was a small sub-field of British political science; within it, David Butler had nurtured a few students, several of whom acted as co-authors for particular projects, but his was very much a single – and impressive – voice.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Election Calendar MASTER 1-13-05
    Donetta Davidson Coordinated Election: November 1, 2005 2005 Election Calendar Secretary of State 30 Dec. 1-2-305(1); Thur. County Clerk and Recorders shall transmit to the Secretary of State, a list of electors showing who voted 1-1-106(5) 2004 and who did not vote in the previous election. (No later than 60 days after a state election.) Earliest day to apply for an absentee ballot for an election in 2005. The application shall be accepted and 1-Jan. 1-8-104 (3); filed no earlier than Jan. 1, 2005. (Exception for absent uniformed services elector, a nonresident overseas Sat. 1-8-103.5 (1.5) elector, or a resident overseas elector, as defined in section 1-2-208.) 5-Jan. County Clerk to transmit an update or master of the county voter registration file. (No later than five days 1-2-302(1) Wed. after the end of the month.) 10-Jan. Last day for state office holders/appointees to file personal financial disclosures, or update form. 24-6-202(4) Mon. 10-Jan. N.V.R.A. 1993, N.V.R.A. Monthly Report due to the Secretary of State's Office. Mon. sec. 9 12-Jan. General Assembly to convene 2005 regular session. (10 A.M. no later than the second Wednesday in Art. V, Sect. 7 Wed. January of each year.) Co. Constitution 14-Jan. Last day for state office holders to file gifts & honoraria reports for all public office holders & judges. 24-6-203(2) Fri. 1-45-108(2)(d); 18-Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Initiative Guide
    2022 CA LIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE Statewide Initiative Guide Preface The Secretary of State has prepared this Statewide Initiative Guide, as required by Elections Code section 9018, to provide an understanding of the procedures and requirements for preparing and circulating initiatives, for filing sections of the petition, and describing the procedure of verifying signatures on the petition. This Guide is for general information only and does not have the force and effect of law, regulation, or rule. In case of conflict, the law, regulation, or rule will apply. Interested persons should obtain the most up-to-date information available because of possible changes in law or procedure since the publication of this Guide. Background and History of the Initiative Process In a special election held on October 10, 1911, California became the 10th state to adopt the initiative process. That year, Governor Hiram Johnson began his term by promising to give citizens a tool they could use to adopt laws and constitutional amendments without the support of the Governor or the Legislature. The new Legislature put a package of constitutional amendments on the ballot that placed more control of California politics directly into the hands of the people. This package included the ability to recall elected officials, the right to repeal laws by referendum, and the ability to enact state laws by initiative. The initiative is the power of the people of California to propose statutes and to propose amendments to the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8(a).) Generally, any matter that is a proper subject of legislation can become an initiative measure; however, no initiative measure addressing more than one subject area may be submitted to the voters or have any effect.
    [Show full text]
  • How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights by Alex Tausanovitch and Danielle Root July 8, 2020
    How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights By Alex Tausanovitch and Danielle Root July 8, 2020 Every 10 years, each U.S. state redraws its electoral districts—lines on a map that have serious real-world consequences. If districts are drawn fairly, then the public can elect representatives who reflect the views of the population as a whole. But if the district lines are manipulated through partisan gerrymandering, then the legislature will be untethered from the popular will. The Center for American Progress has published a series of reports that analyze how partisan gerrymandering affects issues from gun violence prevention to access to health insurance to policies that are important to children and families.1 This issue brief explores how gerrymandering affects voting rights. In recent years, gerrymandered legislatures have pioneered other tools to stay in power, including making it harder for voters who oppose them to cast a ballot. It is a power grab on top of a power grab. Fortunately, both of these interrelated problems—gerrymandering and limits on the right to vote—are fixable. Indeed, citizens across the country seem to be fired up about reform.2 This could be the political moment to solve these problems and get American democracy back on track. This issue brief examines the only four states where, after the 2018 elections, the party that won a majority of state legislative seats received only a minority of the total statewide vote: North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Because of gerrymandering, these four states dramatically failed a basic test of democracy—votes did not translate into political power.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio's Gerrymandering Problem
    Ohio’s Gerrymandering Problem: Why Haven’t We Fixed This Yet? A Report from the League of Women Voters of Ohio and Common Cause Ohio Contents: What is Gerrymandering?.........p.2 Ohio Redistricting Timeline…...p.3 A Short History of Ohio Redistrict- ing……………………………...…..p.4 1992-2002 The last time Ohio almost passed re- form: the 2010 legislative proposal ……………………….……………...p.6 “The Elephant in the Room” the last time Ohio’s congressional districts were drawn ……………………….p.7 “Predictable Results” and how Ohio’s congressional districts are rigged against voters …………………...p.16 1982-1992 1 What is Gerrymandering? Redistricting 101: Why do we redraw districts? • Every ten years the US Census is conducted to measure population changes. • The US Supreme Court has said all legislative districts should have roughly the same population so that everyone’s vote counts equally. This is commonly referred to as “one person, one vote.” • In the year following the Census, districts are redrawn to account for people moving into or out of an area and adjusted so that districts again have equal population and, for US House districts, may change depending on the number of districts Ohio is entitled to have. • While the total number of state general assembly districts is fixed -- 99 Ohio House and 33 Ohio Senate districts -- the number of US House districts allocated to each state may change follow- ing the US Census depending on that state’s proportion of the total US population. For example, following the 2010 Census, Ohio lost two US House seats, going from 18 US House seats in 2002-2012 to 16 seats in 2012-2022.
    [Show full text]
  • RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2018 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RUCHO ET AL. v. COMMON CAUSE ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 18–422. Argued March 26, 2019—Decided June 27, 2019* Voters and other plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits challenging their States’ congressional districting maps as unconsti- tutional partisan gerrymanders. The North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Demo- crats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, §2. The Dis- trict Courts in both cases ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the de- fendants appealed directly to this Court. Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions be- yond the reach of the federal courts. Pp. 6–34. (a) In these cases, the Court is asked to decide an important ques- tion of constitutional law. Before it does so, the Court “must find that the question is presented in a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ that is .
    [Show full text]
  • The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act and the Next Election
    The Fixed-term Parliaments Act and the Next Election Sir Stephen Laws Foreword by Lord Strathclyde CH The Fixed-term Parliaments Act and the Next Election Sir Stephen Laws Foreword by Lord Strathclyde CH Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development and retains copyright and full editorial control over all its written research. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Registered charity no: 1096300. Trustees Diana Berry, Alexander Downer, Pamela Dow, Andrew Feldman, Candida Gertler, Patricia Hodgson, Greta Jones, Edward Lee, Charlotte Metcalf, Roger Orf, Andrew Roberts, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, Peter Wall, Nigel Wright. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act and the Next Election About the Author Sir Stephen Laws KCB, QC (Hon) is Senior Research Fellow at Policy Exchange and formerly First Parliamentary Counsel 2 | policyexchange.org.uk © Policy Exchange 2019 Published by Policy Exchange, 8 – 10 Great George Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3AE www.policyexchange.org.uk
    [Show full text]